ARCHANA RAJENDRA MALU,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. PAN : AACHR7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the two different assessees directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income

RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU,HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. PAN : AACHR7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 29.08.2023 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the two different assessees directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

gained by delaying the filing of appeal, the delay of 237 days is condoned in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

capital gain as casual income could not be said to be based on change of opinion. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. Relying on the following decisions, he submitted that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are in accordance with law: 1. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

237 days of dissolution. Further, the assessee firm has\ncarried out the afore-mentioned transaction(s) after closure of business activities.\nIn such a scenario, provisions of section 189 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 needs to\nbe invoked and liability of tax, penalty, etc. needs to be borne by the partner(s) of\nthe at the time of dissolution

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

237 days of dissolution. Further, the assessee firm has\ncarried out the afore-mentioned transaction(s) after closure of business activities.\nIn such a scenario, provisions of section 189 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 needs to\nbe invoked and liability of tax, penalty, etc. needs to be borne by the partner(s) of\nthe at the time of dissolution

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(!), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

237 ITR 579 when it was not derived from the activities of the eligible business? 2(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the allowances made u/s 14A of the Act by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that